Dissecting the peer-review process: A cross-disciplinary study of editor and reviewer roles in academia

In the current debate on academic publishing, the roles of editors and reviewers are under scrutiny. To capture views on these roles, assess discrepancies between their perceived and desired functions, and gauge acceptance of the peer-review process, we conducted a survey, yielding 569 responses from 70 countries. Our findings reveal two key insights: there are significant differences between perceived and actual roles of editors and reviewers across disciplines, suggesting variability in peer-review practices. The main discrepancy was that authors perceived reviewers as solely responsible for acceptance decisions, whereas respondents expressed a preference for joint decision-making by Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors. Despite a low rating of peer review effectiveness in ensuring publication quality, most respondents believe it should be retained. These results underscore the need for cross-disciplinary dialogue to develop ethical and professional practices that enhance the quality of academic publishing.